Posted on 12/04/2005 8:30:01 AM PST by radar101
Rep. Bob Filner has paid at least $505,000 in campaign funds to his wife for political consulting services since 1995. For the past five years she has run her unregistered business out of their condominium in Washington, D.C.
Filner has properly reported the payments to his wife's business, called Campaign Resources, on his campaign statements. He also has filed annual financial disclosure reports stating that his wife earns an undisclosed salary as a "self-employed consultant." However, the District of Columbia government has no record of Campaign Resources existing as a business, and directory assistance has no phone listing for that name.
With no public records linking Jane Filner to her company, Bob Filner's constituents have no way of knowing that some of his campaign contributions are finding their way into his household's income.
Asked to prove the existence of his wife's business, Filner's campaign provided faxed copies of a blank check from an account at SunTrust bank and a sheet of Campaign Resources letterhead with an outdated address and phone number.
It is illegal to spend campaign funds for personal use, but it is not illegal to use them to pay family members who provide "bona fide services" at fair-market value. Still, election watchdogs question the way the Filners set up their arrangement.
Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said the question is whether "this (is) sloppiness or whether it's an attempt to hide that he's paying his wife for working for him."
Filner defended what he called "a perfectly legal arrangement" that was cleared with an attorney.
"Nobody's trying to hide anything," he said.
Jane Filner's only client is her husband, and for the past 11 years she has drawn what is essentially an annual salary from his campaign, though the amount varies from year to year.
She was paid $60,000 for fundraising and political consulting services in 1998, when Filner had the luxury of running unopposed, the first time in 70 years a congressman in San Diego County faced no other candidate.
Campaign issue This year, Filner's three-time opponent, Assemblyman Juan Vargas, is making the payments a central issue of his campaign for the 51st District seat. As in previous races, the two Democratic rivals are exchanging accusations of corruption. With the primary still six months away, this could be their ugliest battle yet.
"I think it's a practice that is absolutely the wrong thing to do and I think in some cases it could be legitimate, however (in this case) the appearance of impropriety is incredible," said Vargas, who is preparing a complaint to the Federal Election Commission.
Filner's response: "It's almost laughable, because he knows very well this is a perfectly legal situation. I have one of the best fundraisers in Washington, someone who I trust obviously, implicitly, and someone who has the respect all through Washington and San Diego for her professionalism."
"... She has offers from other congress people and other campaigns to work for them, but she can't – she's working for us full-time."
Filner contended that his longtime practice of paying campaign funds to his wife is not only legitimate, but "irrelevant to the congressional campaign."
"What's wrong with that? Why is that a story?" he asked. He said Vargas is raising the issue to distract voters from important topics such as jobs, education and health care.
Although paying family members with campaign funds is not an uncommon practice in Congress, election watchdogs say it is controversial because it can be difficult to measure the quality and quantity of services being provided.
Bill Wachob, a La Jolla political media consultant who has worked for Filner's campaigns since 1991, said that is not the case here. The results of Jane Filner's work are incontrovertible, he said, because she has raised more than $10 million for the campaigns since 1995. She started fundraising as a volunteer before that, he said, and has served as the primary fundraising consultant since then.
The $10 million figure, however, turned out to be overstated.
Bob Biersack, a Federal Election Commission spokesman, said records show that Filner's campaigns raised a total of $4.6 million from January 1995 through September 2005, which means her fee equates to 11 percent of all the money raised. During that same period, Biersack said, Filner's campaigns spent $3.9 million.
Hiring family members can leave a candidate open to attack by an opponent, a strategy Filner himself used in his 1992 campaign for Congress.
In a campaign mailer, Filner ridiculed his Republican opponent, Tony Valencia, for using almost half his campaign contributions to "buy expensive suits and to put his wife on the payroll."
Two years later, Filner sought legal advice before putting his wife on the campaign payroll. A memo he released from his law firm, Perkins Coie, said the practice was legal, but cautioned "there may be political risks. . . . Congressman Filner's opponent might raise the issue . . . and even file a formal complaint, regardless of its lack of merit, with the FEC."
National scrutiny The issue of paying campaign funds to family members gained national attention earlier this year when it became public that Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, had paid more than $500,000 to his wife and daughter since 2001. In September, DeLay was indicted in Texas on unrelated charges of conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme. Vargas initially complained about the payments to Filner's wife in an article published in The San Diego Union-Tribunein April. He brought his concerns to the newspaper's attention again recently after learning the payments totalled more than $500,000 and that the District of Columbia had no record of the company.
To operate a home consulting business in Washington, D.C., officials there said the business owner must obtain a certificate of occupancy from the district government and register a trade name and federal tax number. They said Campaign Resources has done none of the above, which could lead to a notice of infraction and fines of at least $2,000.
Wachob said Filner's campaign consulted with an attorney again after hearing this from the Union-Tribune and was advised that only one issue with Jane Filner's business needed to be remedied.
"It appears that she does need to register a trade name, and it does appear that that was an oversight and a mistake and that she will comply with that," Wachob said.
Ethics questioned Officials from two national election watchdog agencies in Washington said the confluence of factors surrounding Filner's arrangement with his wife raises questions of both business and political ethics. "It's not uncommon that members will pay their family in a campaign setting, but in this case, it does raise questions in terms of the quality of the disclosure," said Mike Surrusco, director of ethics campaigns for Common Cause. "If this is not an official entity, what is it? And why isn't it an official entity seeing how it's been operating like this for years?"
Noble, with the Center for Responsive Politics, said the fact that Filner's wife has no other clients contributes to the appearance that he is trying to hide their arrangement.
Filner said he generally agrees with people from the Center for Responsive Politics and has worked with them on campaign finance reform, but he disagrees with them on this issue.
"Everybody in Washington and in San Diego who contributes to me knows that my fundraiser is Jane, so it's a pretty open situation," Filner said.
Filner said he solicited bids to make sure her fee was at market rate before putting her under contract, and he re-checks that fee periodically.
"We're paying her far less than other people in similar positions make and what she could make on the outside, but we like to work together," Filner said.
Filner said his wife has a dedicated business phone line in their condominium, and he provided the number to the Union-Tribune. The number was listed in directory assistance as being registered to "Friends of Max Baucas." On the answering machine message, Jane Filner identifies herself by name, but never mentions Campaign Resources or fundraising. Max Baucus is a U.S. senator and a Democrat from Montana.
Filner's campaign said the number is a "Filner for Congress line," but directory assistance has no such listing. Wachob said Jane Filner has never worked for Baucus – a fact confirmed by the senator's chief of staff – at least as far back as 1996.
Initially, Filner told the Union-Tribune that his wife had obtained a business license as required and that he would fax a copy to the newspaper. Several days later, Filner said he had misspoken.
In the mid-1990s, he said, Jane Filner checked with local government officials and was told that a consultant didn't need a business license. He said she pays taxes like any other sole proprietorship.
Through Wacob, Filner refused to produce tax forms that could back up that assertion. Filner also said he would not allow his wife of 20 years to be interviewed for this story.
"Employees don't talk to the press," he said. "Vendors who work for me don't talk to the press. That's our general policy. I talk for the campaign. If you have anything for the campaign, ask me."
A week after Filner made this statement, Wachob, also a campaign vendor, called the Union-Tribune to answer questions for this story.
Vargas said Filner's refusal to let his wife speak for herself only underscored questions about the legitimacy of the payments.
"This money is owed to her as a campaign professional and yet when asked if she can speak about it, he says 'No, she's my wife.' Wait a minute. Which one is it?" he said.
Jane Merrill married Bob Filner while she was working at the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission, which oversees changes in jurisdictional boundaries and the organization of local government entities.
She started there as a staff analyst in October 1979 and was promoted to executive officer in mid-1984, said Mike Ott, who replaced her when she left in December 1992.
Jane Filner moved to Washington with her husband after he won his congressional seat. There, Wachob said, she worked as the executive director for a political action committee called Democrats 2000, now known as 21st Century Democrats, from May 1993 to December 1994.
Filner said his wife also worked for some other campaigns before joining his. He said she has a bachelor's degree in political science from San Jose State University and a master's degree in public administration from San Diego State University.
Ben Katz, another of Filner's campaign consultants in San Diego, said Jane Filner has always been involved in almost every aspect of her husband's campaigns.
"She's a nice person," Katz said. "She's also one of the smartest people I've had the opportunity to work with on campaigns. I know I personally learned a lot from her."
Caitlin Rother: (619) 542-4567; caitlin.rother@uniontrib.com
And we can count on this getting glossed over by the Leftist media in no time at all!
Just as I thought. Rep Filner is a Democrat. Why was I sure Rep Filner was a Democrat? Because his party affiliation was not mentioned until the eleventh paragraph of the article.
The Irony: Juan Vargas, Filner's opponent, is a Hispanic-oriented, Radical Liberal. He is a Harvard graduate and a former San Diego City Councilman.
Watch for the stories on Bajagua Sewage Project.
http://www.bajagua.com/
Millions (250-600) of dollars of US taxpayers money on a project that will be built in Mexico on a no-bid contract. Filner is in it up to his eyeballs. Developing......
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bajagua&btnG=Google+Search
And California isn't the only STATE whose
representatives play the same "payments for
temporary office/field" help game.
I live in Illinois!
Not a Republican ergo it's a non-starter.
I see that an Opposition Research battle is shaping up between the Dems and Reps, with ethics charges as the ammo. Guess the goal in the next election is going to be to make as many people as possible on the other side look corrupt. The side effect will be to make the public think everyone in office is a dirtbag.
Sad thing about Vargas. Over a decade ago, he was considered a center-right challenger to Filner, but lost when he ran. After getting into the Assembly, he seemed to move to the dark side. Apparently now he makes Filner look like a moderate.
Typical liberal hypocrisy!!
"Apparently now he makes Filner look like a moderate."
Hey, c'mon, now. You know the 'Rats are always trying to push the margins even further off to the western horizon... ;-)
"I don't think Vargas will beat Filner, since most San Diego Hispanics are in Susan Davis's CD and Imperial County Hispanics don't know Vargas from Adam---besides, while the district's population is 51% Hispanic, the electorate is not more than 40% Hispanic."
Vargas, I would think, would pose a greater threat now as a sitting Assemblyman than he did earlier in his career when he was a nobody. We also tend to presume that the voters may vote along racial lines, not always the case (although usually it is). Of course, I'd also have to see what kind of $$ Vargas has raised for the contest. If it's one of those situations where Filner outnumbers him 10-to-1 or more in funds, then this will likely be a non-contest.
"But if Filner beats Vargas in an ethnically divisive primary, a Hispanic Republican could win the seat in November, since President Bush won 45.73% in 2004 (thanks to his improved performance with Hispanic voters) and a Hispanic Republican congressional candidate could get that extra 4.5% or so. Heck, even if Vargas wins the primary, he could lose to a Hispanic Republican in the general."
"Are there any prominent Hispanic Republicans in the San Diego or Imperial County areas who could run for Congress?"
I'm sure there must be someone, but I'm blanking. The only Hispanic candidate that has challenged him in the general (to my knowledge) in recent years was a no-name Latina candidate by the name of Maria Guadalupe Garcia (IIRC, I think she was a housewife). Although he beat her 2-to-1, it was a rather low number of overall votes in total (59k to 40k). Although that low-turnout tends to occur in many of the districts with high numbers of Hispanics, of course. As of now, it looks like the Republicans won't even challenge the seat next year.
Being a rat means never having to say you're sorry - until you get caught.
ping for later
This thing doesn't even come close to passing the "smell test".
On another take - note Filner's attitude with this story... one of defiance. Like he's above it all for the press to be investigating anything.... Again - what a hypocrite!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.